SAPNA GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30542 of 2026

Sapna Gupta
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)           : Santosh Kumar Singh, Syed Wajid Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      : G.A.

Court No. - 64
                      HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 295 of 2026, under Sections 108, 352,
351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly during the
pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of
the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
incident is alleged to have occurred on 05.01.2026, whereas the application
under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was filed on 09.02.2026. The first
information report was lodged on 11.03.2026. Inordinate delay in filing the
application for registration of the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death
could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical
analysis. As per the viscera report, aluminum phosphide poison was found.
Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the statement of
the witnesses namely Kamal Kumar, Mukesh Kashyap, Mahendra Singh and
Naresh Chandra Gupta and the material collected during the course of
investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under
Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted
the commission of suicide by the deceased. Mere allegation of matrimonial
discord between the applicant and the deceased in absence of any positive
act of instigation, intentional aid, or proximate conduct compelling the
deceased to commit suicide, do not constitute the offence of abetment to
                                                            BAIL No. 30542 of 2026
                                  2


suicide. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Nipun
Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of
2017, decided on 03.10.2024, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of
Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024,
decided on 18.08.2025. Investigation has been completed and the charge-
sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The
applicant is in jail since 19.07.2026 and if she is released on bail, she will
not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the application for registration of the
first information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the allegations in
the first information report, the statement of the witnesses namely Kamal
Kumar, Mukesh Kashyap, Mahendra Singh and Naresh Chandra Gupta and
the material collected during the course of investigation, the essential
ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made
out. There is no proximate or direct act attributable to the applicant that
could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the
commission of suicide. Moreover, the applicant is a lady and has remained
confined for more than one and half month and after submission of the
charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable
apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if
enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or
intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the
case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant- Sapna Gupta, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the
conditions that she:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
                                                                                              BAIL No. 30542 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
                                    at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.


                                    September 8, 2026
                                    SKT/-                                                       (Vivek Varma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad